253

p In its fight against the world socialist system, the international working-class movement and the theory of Marxism-Leninism, the imperialist ideologists, like reactionary politicians, speculate on the problem of national relations, putting their stake on bourgeois nationalism, and doing their utmost to spread, praise and encourage 254 nationalistic hostility and exclusiveness. Needless to say, this line is covered up with false claims to defence of the national interests and national independence of the socialist countries.

p The hopes of undermining the unity and cohesion of the communist and working-class movement and of the socialist community has become a, if not the, main means used by international imperialism in resisting social progress.

p Lenin wrote: “It is in the interest of capital to destroy its enemy (the revolutionary proletariat) bit by bit.”  [254•1  This is an exact expression of the hopes of imperialism in its fight against the world socialist system.

p In his speech at the International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties, Max Reimann, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Germany, declared: “The imperialists have pinned special hopes on nationalism, which, as they themselves say, they are using as a means to undermine our movement.”  [254•2 

p At the same meeting, Janos Kadar, First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party, said: “Our enemies, the imperialists, are well aware that their counter-revolutionary plans aimed against the world socialist system can succeed only if they manage to divide the socialist countries and incite contradictions between them.”  [254•3 

p The anti-communist reactionaries of the world now pin their main hopes on the use of nationalism to promote the spread of so-called polycentrism. One collection of papers says: “Every Western government favors a ’policy of movement’ in Eastern Europe, a policy which implies the encouragement of East European polycentrism.”  [254•4  Cyrus Sulzberger, the well-known American commentator, says that the “initial US goal is to loosen up the bloc” (meaning the community of socialist countries). He adds: “Our first aspiration is to split the USSR’s European empire into individual segments.”  [254•5  This is a typical imperialist propaganda 255 statement and it exposes one of the main lines along which bourgeois ideologists have been working in their efforts to undermine the unity of the socialist countries.

p The tattered anti-communist myth of “Soviet imperialism”, a myth based on brazen distortion of actual Soviet foreign policy, is used on every occasion in an effort to blow up any minor point that may weaken the friendship and co-operation of the socialist countries and the Soviet Union. It was the height of cynicism to talk of the establishment of a Soviet empire and to contemplate the possibility of “successful revolts” against its authority in the future, just after the end of the Great Patriotic War, when the Soviet Union had scored its victory over fascism, which helped to liberate many nations from the fascist bondage, a victory which cost the Soviet people 20 million lives, the lives of its best sons. But that is exactly what George F. Kennan was doing as early as May 1945.  [255•1 

p However, not all the ideological opponents of socialism are so outspoken. In the recent period, they have concentrated on theoretical exercises. It is no easy thing to fulfil their social order, namely, to move the ideological influence of imperialism into the socialist countries. And so we find imperialist propaganda of bourgeois nationalism running on new lines: there is the effort to emasculate the social, class content of national ideology, to treat proletarian internationalism as a principle hostile to national interests, to ascribe national nihilism to Marxism, to contrast international and national interests, and to support pettybourgeois nationalism.

p “The emergence of a plurality of sovereign Communist powers” was a basic factor in making the disintegration of the organisation and doctrine of world communism possible, says a conference organised at Stanford University by the Hoover Institute on War, Revolution and Peace, on the general subject of “One Hundred Years of Revolutionary Internationals”. Professor J. H. Billington writes: “What is common to nationalism in Eastern Europe ... is a shared feeling of having been treated as semi-colonial, faintly inferior and—worst of all—historically irrelevant secondclass Europeans.” In the next breath, the Professor makes quite clear the purpose of all these inventions. He writes: (’. 1-f, < 256 “Each East European country is anxious to exercise full self-determination for a time, in order to feel fully able to participate in the broader European community.”  [256•1 

p We find that the ostensible champions of the socialist countries’ national sovereignty are not really worried about their true national independence, and the demagogic talk on the national issue is designed for one purpose only, namely, to undermine the strength of socialism and the authority of Marxist-Leninist theory, and to change the balance of forces in Europe and the world.

p The same purpose is served by the bourgeois ideologists’ idea that “international communism, ever since its birth as a political movement, has borne within it the seeds of inevitable conflict between central control and national autonomy”.  [256•2  To substantiate the Communists’ “national nihilism”, bourgeois ideologists frequently quote the Communist Manifesto which says that the “working men have no country”. Professor Billington pretends that the Communist Manifesto takes an attitude of national nihilism, and declares: “Communists have been underestimating the appeal of nationalism ever since Marx wrote in his ’Communist Manifesto’ ... ’the working men have no country’.”  [256•3  In actual fact, the well-known Marxist formula—“the working men have no country”—does not at all mean that the proletariat is indifferent to the country’s fortunes. What it means is that under capitalism the working class, deprived of land, means of production and state power, and consequently not being master of the country but only an object of exploitation, does in fact have no country, which he gains only through socialist revolution and the establishment of its own state. The workers’ hostile attitude to bourgeois “fatherlands”, that is, “fatherlands” in the bourgeois sense, in fact sprang from its deprived position, so that the worker of another country was more akin to the worker of this country than any of his exploiter compatriots. The Communist Manifesto says that the proletariat must become the leading force of the nation and rise to political supremacy. Lenin emphasised the class and concrete historical approach to 257 this question of country, which is the only way to understand the dialectics of the national and the internationalist.

p The social content of the national interests is the key to the real balance between national interests and proletarian internationalism.

p Lenin said that patriotism and internationalism were blended in the working-class struggle for emancipating the masses of people from the yoke of wage slavery, in the fight against every form of imperialist oppression, and in the development of the best progressive national traditions of their country. In his famous article, “On the National Pride of the Great Russians”, Lenin showed that the national interests of the Russians, correctly understood, were completely identical with the socialist interests of the Russian and all other proletarians.

p Engels wrote that “the truly national ideas in the working-class movement ... are always simultaneously truly international = ideas”.  [257•1  History has borne out his conclusion.

p Today, it is the working class that represents and expresses truly national ideas and interests.

p The working class, fighting for socialism at the head of the democratic forces, simultaneously tackles both internationalist and truly national patriotic tasks. The revolutionary working-class movement, which is international, is of necessity national in form.

A man’s country, that is, a given political, cultural and social environment, is a powerful factor in the proletariat’s class struggle. Lenin wrote: “The proletariat cannot be indifferent to the political, social and cultural conditions of its struggle; consequently it cannot be indifferent to the destinies of its country. But the destinies of the country interest it only to the extent that they affect its class struggle.”  [257•2  Lenin remarked on the connection between the truly national and the class interests in the context of the proletarian struggle under capitalism. This connection naturally becomes even more obvious and direct under socialism. The socialist state, whose existence and development embodies the principal, class interests of all the oppressed, has become a true

25& 258 country of the working people, where the true national interest is identical with the internationalist.

p The Soviet Union, with its 15 national Union Republics, has become a great epoch-making example of the identity of the internationalist and the truly national tasks and interests of all the peoples. Subsequently, with the emergence of the world socialist system, the development of socialist construction, which embodies the people’s principal national interest, is simultaneously that people’s contribution to the common internationalist cause of strengthening the positions of socialism throughout the world.

p Thus, the relation between the national and the international may be summed up as follows: the truly national interests of the proletariat of each country are identical with the international interests of the working class of all countries. On the other hand, international achievements in the revolutionary transformation of society are the more considerable the more important are the victories scored in this sphere by the national contingents of the working class.

p Is it right to distinguish the international importance of the Communists’ revolutionary struggle and the national importance of their heroic endeavours? No, it is not. One is deeply stirred by the boundless patriotism expressed by Ernst Thalmann, the leader of the German working class, in a message he wrote in prison in January 1944, and first published in October 1950 by Neues Deutschland. He said: “I am not a rootless man. I am a German with much national and international experience. My people, to whom I belong and whom I love is the German people, and my nation of which I am proud is the German nation, a gallant, proud and staunch nation. I have my roots in the German working class. That is why, as a son of the revolutionary class, I subsequently became its revolutionary leader. My life and my work were aimed only at the welfare of the German working people, and my knowledge, strength and experience, my activity—my whole being—was dedicated to the struggle for Germany’s future, for the triumph of socialism, for freedom, for a fresh flourishing of the German nation.”  [258•1 

259

p The practice of the peoples of the socialist countries has confirmed that their fraternal unity and co-operation accord with the loftiest national interests of each country, because each socialist country’s supreme national interests are defence and safeguarding of its socialist gains, consolidation and development of socialism, and the country’s further advance along the socialist path. But success on this path can be scored only on the basis of the fraternal internationalist unity of all the national contingents of the communist movement, of all the countries of the socialist system. Consolidation of the unity of the socialist community on the basis of proletarian internationalism is a necessary condition for the further successes of all the states within it.

p Consequently, the socialist countries’ true national interests are embodied above all in the people’s struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system.

p The wealth and diversity of the historical creative effort of the peoples both building socialism and communism and engaged in preparing the socialist revolution demonstrate in practice the diversity of ways and forms of transition to socialism, the specifically national and concrete approaches by each country to the solution of the general internationalist tasks.

p But as soon as the “national” is turned into an absolute and is separated from the international or is contrasted to it, the “national” ceases to be the truly national interest and clashes with the international, beginning to run counter to the truly national interests, which is inconceivable outside the context of international aims and interests.

p Is it for instance possible to contrast the national sovereignty of any socialist country to the interests of the socialist community, and what would be the result of such a contrast? True national sovereignty is popular rule. Popular rule in each socialist country is consolidated and defended by the joint efforts of the mighty socialist camp. The bonds with the fraternal socialist countries facilitate a country’s material and cultural progress and ensure reliable protection against imperialist aggression. Relaxation of these bonds jeopardises not only the country’s socialist gains but also its national independence.

p To depart from internationalism is to abandon the class stand, to abandon the supreme interests of socialism and revolution, which cannot be assured otherwise than on the 260 basis of implacable struggle against imperialism, on the basis of strong socialist brotherhood, the unity of the world communist movement. Genuine and supreme national interests are the interests of the revolution and socialism, and the only way of safeguarding them successfully is the way of internationalist solidarity and joint action, the way of complete and consistent consideration of all the principles of proletarian internationalism in their concrete historical development.

p Nor is it right to separate some single element from the objectively determined system of principles and laws of proletarian internationalism. That is the approach of pettybourgeois nationalism, which, Lenin pointed out, amounts to calling “internationalism the mere recognition of the equality of nations, and nothing more”.  [260•1 

p The principle of equality of nations like the other democratic principles of international relations, is a part of ideology of proletarian internationalism, but is not included in it mechanically. It is included in its developed form at a high level and—what is equally important—in aggregation and inter-relation with the main principles of proletarian internationalism. The policy of equality of nations on the basis of socialism and proletarian internationalism results in their actual equality (that is, the establishment of a fraternal family of nations in which mutual assistance and support ensure accelerated development for each member). Let us bear in mind that successes in developing socialist relations cannot be maintained, safeguarded or multiplied without conscious consideration and observance of the general laws of socialist construction and principles of proletarian internationalism.

p That is precisely what petty-bourgeois nationalism ignores, because as a rule it links up with Right-opportunist revisionism and Trotskyism.

p The one-sidedness, inconsistency and narrowness of pettybourgeois nationalism is literally a godsend for imperialism. Bourgeois ideologists and politicians seek and make use of any breach in the socialist countries, any departure from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism, because these departures help them to consolidate their class positions.

261

p The claims of petty-bourgeois nationalism to be loyal to the ideas of patriotism, national welfare and independence are profoundly erroneous.

p The attitude which reduces the internationalism to the equality of nations alone does harm to national interests because it ignores the unity of the national and the internationalist interests and impels a country to strike out on its own, in isolation from the other socialist countries. This attitude is “theoretically untenable because it conflicts with the objective laws governing the development of socialist society. It is harmful economically because it causes waste of social labour, retards the rates of growth of production and makes the country dependent upon the capitalist world. It is reactionary and dangerous politically because it does not unite, but divides the peoples in face of the united front of imperialist forces, because it nourishes bourgeoisnationalist tendencies and may ultimately lead to the loss of the socialist gains”.  [261•1 

p In their effort to contrast the national and the internationalist, bourgeois ideologists frequently refer to the national traditions and cultures in the socialist countries. Thus, one-time US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, said that better use must be made of the “concepts of independent nationhood, of national interest and of national culture” which “are day to day asserting themselves strongly”  [261•2  within the socialist countries. Professor Billington says: “There is a near-universal search for national identity throughout Eastern Europe. After nearly twenty years of Soviet-enforced uniformity, people are discovering traditions in their pasts as different as the economic resources they possess in the present.”  [261•3 

p This question arises: have the authors of these lines truly never heard about the real attitude taken by the Soviet Union and the Communists to national culture, national identity and national tradition in general? Their attitude has long since become more than a matter of theory, for it has been translated into the living practice of the Soviet socialist national republics, which have amazed the world by the flourishing of their national culture, their solicitude 262 for the truly great and progressive national traditions. The Communists put a high value on national traditions, but there are traditions and traditions.

p The matter was succinctly put by Maurice Thorez, a remarkable son of the French people. In his book, Fits du peuple, he wrote that the patriots of France “had always taken a legitimate pride in the past greatness of their country, pride in their great ancestors of 1793, pride in the fighters of February and June 1848, pride in the heroes of the Commune... . The French Communists are the heirs of the 18-century Encyclopaedists, the materialist philosophers Diderot, Helvetius and Holbach.... Our love for our country is love for our people whom we want to see free and happy.”  [262•1 

p But not all traditions deserve to be continued. Hardly any honest American will take pride in the annihilation of the Indians, the segregation of the Blacks, or the aggressive interventions and monstrous and systematic destruction of Vietnamese merely because these people want to be masters of their own country (in much the same way that progressive Americans wanted to be masters in theirs).

p What then are the traditions the bourgeois ideologists suggest for revival in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe? Professor Billington explains, as he engages in some wishful thinking: “The Czechs have rediscovered Masaryk and a national democratic tradition; the Poles, on the other hand, have in a sense rediscovered Pilsudski.”  [262•2  Those are the traditions of the East European countries that the imperialists cherish and that is what they extol in place of the hated proletarian internationalism and friendship with the Soviet Union.

p But what have these traditions to do with real national interests and sovereignty? Everyone knows that the policies pursued by Eduard Benes and Tomas Masaryk led up to the betrayal of Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty and her enslavement by the nazi invaders. Everyone knows that Czechoslovakia’s sovereignty was re-established in the heroic battles fought by the Soviet Army against the nazi plunderers and oppressors. Lubomir Strougal was quite right when he stressed in a report at a meeting to mark the 99th 263 anniversary of the birth of V. I. Lenin, held in Prague, that “the question of sovereignty and independent development should be seen by us and solved in practice in such a way as to prevent any fragmentation of our forces and thereby of any weakening of our resistance to the common enemy. ... Our Republic’s sovereignty can be assured only in alliance with the socialist countries, on the basis of the all-round cooperation and mutual friendship with the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.”  [263•1 

p The Soviet Union’s attitude to national sovereignty is clear. Throughout its history, the USSR has in fact stood up for the principle of national sovereignty of all the peoples of the world. Among the incontrovertible historical facts are the granting of state independence to peoples enslaved by tsarism, the repudiation of unequal treaties, the selfless heroic struggle against fascism, which was invaluable assistance to many peoples in restoring their independence and in strengthening their sovereignty on a new, socialist basis, and assistance to peoples fighting against imperialist oppression.

p Consistent respect for national sovereignty, far from clashing, in fact implies all-round close co-operation and mutual assistance of the fraternal parties and socialist countries in their joint defence against the schemes of imperialism and the anti-socialist forces. “The socialist states,” said L. I. Brezhnev, “stand for strict respect of the sovereignty of all countries. We resolutely oppose intervention in the affairs of any states and violation of their sovereignty.

p “What is of especial importance for us, Communists, is the establishment and defence of the sovereignty of states taking the path of socialist construction. The forces of imperialism and reaction seek to deprive the peoples of this or that socialist country of the sovereign right they have won to ensure the flourishing of their own country, the welfare and happiness of broad masses of the working people, by building a society free from any oppression and exploitation. Whenever encroachments on this right are given a solid rebuff by the socialist camp, bourgeois propagandists raise a hue and cry about ‘defence of sovereignty’ no and ’non-interference’. On their part this amounts to no 264 more than fraud and demagogy. In actual fact, these squallers are concerned not about preserving socialist sovereignty, but about destroying it.”  [264•1 

p National sovereignty and proletarian internationalism are closely connected with each other. Consistent practice of proletarian internationalism is the main guarantee and criterion of defence of truly national interests.

p “The evidence of history,” says James Jackson, Secretary of the National Committee of the Communist Party of the USA, “is that the national interest of a particular people cannot be really advanced through any weakening of ties on the part of its vanguard leading force with the world working class and communist movement. On the contrary, the evidence is that the stronger the bonds of proletarian internationalism, the greater are the national attainments.”  [264•2 

p The Communists do not merely express national interests “in general”. Because national interest does not exist as anything homogenious until such time as a nation ceases to be a socially mixed entity, national interest may be viewed and interpreted from different, sometimes opposite, class angles.

Marxists-Leninists never consider national interest in the abstract, “in general”, but only the interest of a nation’s development along the path of social progress, which in the present conditions means struggle for socialism, communism, freedom and democracy for all working people, for a progressive peaceable foreign national policy. That is the objective basis for the indissoluble unity of proletarian internationalism and the struggle for national interests, the unity of the international and the national. Of course, considering the complex and contradictory nature of the present epoch, this objective law makes headway by overcoming resistance on the part of hostile class forces and ideological trends. That is why the subjective factor is of the utmost importance in promoting the victory of the progressive trend in the development of the national question, in the triumph of ideology and practice of proletarian internationalism; the subjective factor is the scientific Marxist-Leninist view of the dialectics of the national and 265 the international, conscious struggle for implementing the principles of proletarian internationalism, for the unity of all the national contingents of the world revolutionary working-class movement, for a united front of struggle of all the progressive forces against imperialism.